True or false?

[leanne]

1) RO water becomes more acidic if you leave it for more than a week - adsorbs things from the atmosphere.

2) You can't keep shrimp with a Scarlet Hawkfish (I've proved this wrong already but will it get eaten eventually? the hawkfish doesn't even look at the shrimp)

3) A theory I have... Speaking from a biochemical point of view consider the following. At a pH of 7 ammonia has most of its free electrons (the thing that makes it toxic) bonded by the polarised H2O. At this pH Nitrite is highly toxic because it has a different polarity to that of water. As the pH gets higher (more basic) ammonia is bonded less (well bonded is a loose term as it's actually Van Der Waals forces) so becomes more toxic. Nitrite on the other hand becomes bonded more (electron configuration again) so thus less toxic. So going by this theory ammonia is more toxic than nitrite to saltwater fish but (contrary to what is written in books) nitrite is more toxic to freshwater fish than ammonia... What do you think? Is this why freshwater fish are (generally) more hardy and accept cycling better - the more sensitive fish seem to prefer a higher pH anyway. Does my thoery hold water (excuse the pun) or does it have vast, leaky, electronless holes?

 

[bgraber]

R/o water sits in storage containers for extended periods of time. This is not a concern.

 

[ste2k3]

RO water has no hardness and a very low PH once produced and if anything, I would have thought it would have gone up not down.

scarlet hawks may eat shrimp but may not, depends on the size of the fish and shrimp and temprement, feeding etc.

the more sensitive fish seem to prefer a higher pH anyway

What about freshwater stingrays? one of the most sensative fish but like sort acidic water. some of that theory may well be correct but as you said, has leaky, electronless holes.

ste

 

[kent]

A theory I have... Speaking from a biochemical point of view consider the following. At a pH of 7 ammonia has most of its free electrons (the thing that makes it toxic) bonded by the polarised H2O. At this pH Nitrite is highly toxic because it has a different polarity to that of water. As the pH gets higher (more basic) ammonia is bonded less (well bonded is a loose term as it's actually Van Der Waals forces) so becomes more toxic. Nitrite on the other hand becomes bonded more (electron configuration again) so thus less toxic. So going by this theory ammonia is more toxic than nitrite to saltwater fish but (contrary to what is written in books) nitrite is more toxic to freshwater fish than ammonia... What do you think? Is this why freshwater fish are (generally) more hardy and accept cycling better - the more sensitive fish seem to prefer a higher pH anyway. Does my thoery hold water (excuse the pun) or does it have vast, leaky, electronless holes?

nice theory u got there but what i know is that at pH=7, the concentrations of both hydronium and hydroxide ions are approximately equal. A high concentration of nitrite in the water is toxic as it inhibits the fish of sufficient oxygen. The fishes are prone to get the brown blood syndrome,if im not mistaken. When the nitrite levels are really high, it is not surprising to see the water pH go up (gets more basic), as most of nitrite ions act as base in water, although some nitrite ions will bind with hydronium to produce a weak acid (HNO2) nitrous acid. Remember that there are many free ions in water and these ions shift to both left and right of the equilibrium. Overall, i believe that ammonia is toxic to both freshwater and salt water fishes regardless of the pH.
8)